Socks Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 For those who take the view that the morally superior position is to retain players on short contracts, would you say that if this was (or might later be found to be) a breach of the rules of the scheme? As I was saying earlier, I see ethical issues in extending contracts artifically when players have no realistic prospect of being retained when the scheme ends. If HMRC in future decide that this is not just ethically dubious but also an abuse of the scheme, that potentially creates big liabilities for all who have been found to have misused it. If your potential liability is not all that big and you see the probability of being chased for the money as being small, you might well be tempted to go with it, knowing that if it came to the worst you could make the repayment. If you have a lot of players affected and your potential liability is large, it would be understandable if you just didn't want to take that chance. The more I've thought about it today, the harder I find it to criticise my own club for the decision taken. Same of course for the others who go the same way this coming week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_no_1 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Why would it be the latter? There would be nothing for Ayr to gain from that. The only questionable thing here is what Dunfermline have done. If it was going to cost us nothing and there was absolutely no risk of it coming back to bite us on the arse then I can see the dilemma here.Which leads me to believe that one or both of these scenarios isn't accurate.Folk like D'Jaffo and the majority of Raith fans either have an agenda or are just too thick to comprehend this. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 minute ago, da_no_1 said: If it was going to cost us nothing and there was absolutely no risk of it coming back to bite us on the arse then I can see the dilemma here. Which leads me to believe that one or both of these scenarios isn't accurate. Folk like D'Jaffo and the majority of Raith fans either have an agenda or are just too thick to comprehend this. So why are clubs like Dundee & Ayr doing it then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Jaffo Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 So why are clubs like Dundee & Ayr doing it then?Cos we do the right thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, da_no_1 said: If it was going to cost us nothing and there was absolutely no risk of it coming back to bite us on the arse then I can see the dilemma here. Which leads me to believe that one or both of these scenarios isn't accurate. The worst case scenario is you have to front the wages until you are reimbursed by the government. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 42 minutes ago, Chubbychops said: Coming from the man that thought furlough meant everybody got 80% of £2500. I think you will find I have some pertinent points, if you grew a brain you fuckwit. 35 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said: You'll need to point out where I said that, Chubs. I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. @Chubbychops, any more on this or are you going to admit you're just making things up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, da_no_1 said: If it was going to cost us nothing and there was absolutely no risk of it coming back to bite us on the arse then I can see the dilemma here. Which leads me to believe that one or both of these scenarios isn't accurate. Folk like D'Jaffo and the majority of Raith fans either have an agenda or are just too thick to comprehend this. At the moment it is impossible to tell because Dunfermline haven’t provided any clarity, but the information available and the fact other clubs have done it does initially leave a bit of a bad smell here, there are Pars fans on the record as not being in agreement. The entire point of the scheme is to help those who would otherwise find themselves with no income so temporarily extending them would do that. It doesn’t cheat the tax payer as the state will be forced to support them via other means. The state of some in here you would think this was hedge fund managers looking for a bailout, not lower level jobbers and young laddies 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbychops Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Ext 21 minutes ago, No_Problemo said: I think it’s incredibly clear what’s right morally tbh. Leave several people severely disadvantaged, due to the current situation, with no income for six weeks until their UC credit claim comes in or ensure they are provided with their normal pay for as long as possible... That people think it’s morally the right option to leave footballers with no money to pay bills or feed their families is bizarre. Yeah, guys who were not getting a contract with Ayr after May anyway? Why are Ayr not giving 1-2 year contracts if they want to keep these players?I would rather my taxation went to getting people off the streets and helping the disabled, than keeping Ayr's deadwood with a wage they don't have to pay for. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_no_1 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 And another thing.....I work in the retail interior fit out industry. It's a really volatile industry. I survived several bouts of redundancies over 30 years then the company I worked with went bust last summer. I got a modest redundancy payment 9 weeks later but luckily enough got another job I then had a choice. Pish my redundancy up the wall or keep a big chunk of it just in case the same thing happens again. Guess what I did.So I'm thinking about guys like Devine Paton and Ashcroft. Every summer there's a big turnaround at most clubs. The majority of freed players get new deals. What do they do with their monthly salary? A/ Pish it up the wall? Or B/ keep some back to cover the close season when they might not get paid trying to find another club?A wee bit forward planning by them should have seen them covered for any goodwill contract offers the likes of Ayr and Dundee are dolling out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_no_1 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Cos we do the right thing. Well let's hope it doesn't come back to haunt you then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, Chubbychops said: would rather my taxation went to getting people off the streets Not helping these players out with extended deals and furlough could quite easily put more on the streets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, No_Problemo said: I think it’s incredibly clear what’s right morally tbh. Leave several people severely disadvantaged, due to the current situation, with no income for six weeks until their UC credit claim comes in or ensure they are provided with their normal pay for as long as possible... That people think it’s morally the right option to leave footballers with no money to pay bills or feed their families is bizarre. Professional footballers in the Scottish second tier get punted in their droves at this time of the year on an annual basis. If they were banking on the long term job security of football to feed their bedraggled family on a weekly basis then they're simply too thick to understand their own industry. They're just going to have to either suck it up and seek an alternative form of government income support like literally hundreds of thousands of others across Scotland in the months to come or ramp up their shitey Herbalife rackets instead. Edited May 23, 2020 by vikingTON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbychops Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: he entire point of the scheme is to help those who would otherwise find themselves with no income so temporarily extending them would do that. It doesn’t cheat the tax payer as the state will be forced to support them via other means Disagree Ribzanelli. The point is to encourage employers to keep staff on long term employment once restrictions are lifted. Also state benefits are much lower than up 80% of 2500. It's not like for like benefits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 38 minutes ago, Chubbychops said: Disagree Ribzanelli. The point is to encourage employers to keep staff on long term employment once restrictions are lifted. Also state benefits are much lower than up 80% of 2500. It's not like for like benefits. Good points, well made. I would argue though that temporarily extending them will result in long term employment - in football. This isn’t a Dunfermline vs Dundee thing, lower league football is fighting for survival and teams need to work together, one way of doing this is to take advantage of this scheme. We already know that people in ‘normal’ jobs who were moving on could be rehired by their old employer so as to access the scheme even though they would never have worked another hour there. It’s easy to say ‘but they were pish and would have been freed anyway’ but the pish from Dunfermline/Dundee/Ayr would quite possibly have been immediately rehired by Raith/Falkirk/Airdrie etc. Dunfermline probably would have been looking at the pish released by a Hibs or a Motherwell but if these players are forced out the game it will make the product worse, when it returns. Of course if it turns out that this isn’t allowed then fair fucks to Dunfermline but some clarity from them would clear this up. In the absence of that clarity, and given that Dundee, Ayr and other industries are going down this route then it is fair to question why Dunfermline aren’t. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbychops Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: Good points, well made. I would argue though that temporarily extending them will result in long term employment - in football. This isn’t a Dunfermline vs Dundee thing, lower league football is fighting for survival and teams need to work together, one way of doing this is to take advantage of this scheme. We already know that people in ‘normal’ jobs who were moving on could be rehired by their old employer so as to access the scheme even though they would never have worked another hour there. It’s easy to say ‘but they were pish and would have been freed anyway’ but the pish from Dunfermline/Dundee/Ayr would quite possibly have been immediately rehired by Raith/Falkirk/Airdrie etc. Dunfermline probably would have been looking at the pish released by a Hibs or a Motherwell but if these players are forced out the game it will make the product worse, when it returns. Of course if it turns out that this isn’t allowed then fair fucks to Dunfermline but some clarity from them would clear this up. In the absence of that clarity, and given that Dundee, Ayr and other industries are going down this route then it is fair to question why Dunfermline aren’t. Respect your point of view ribzanelli. It's is a subject that raises a moral dilema but I would say reading the poster Socks response a few posts ago is how I would respond to your question in the last sentence. Quote- '' For those who take the view that the morally superior position is to retain players on short contracts, would you say that if this was (or might later be found to be) a breach of the rules of the scheme? As I was saying earlier, I see ethical issues in extending contracts artifically when players have no realistic prospect of being retained when the scheme ends. If HMRC in future decide that this is not just ethically dubious but also an abuse of the scheme, that potentially creates big liabilities for all who have been found to have misused it. If your potential liability is not all that big and you see the probability of being chased for the money as being small, you might well be tempted to go with it, knowing that if it came to the worst you could make the repayment. If you have a lot of players affected and your potential liability is large, it would be understandable if you just didn't want to take that chance. The more I've thought about it today, the harder I find it to criticise my own club for the decision taken. Same of course for the others who go the same way this coming week.'' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) Exactly, which is why it would be nice to know why DAFC have chosen this route! ETA have the PFA said anything? Thought they would know what the position is Edited May 23, 2020 by ribzanelli 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SJP79 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 They still talking about virtual season tickets in championship ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 If there is some cost that folk are unaware of that mean the club can't extend the contracts of these players (even if it's just for 1 month or even if it's for 3 or 4) then the club need to say what it is, and should have said so from the start. I still am not on board at all with the taxpayer arguments. The taxpayers are ripped off on a far bigger scale on a regular basis. I don't consider this ripping off the taxpayer though, and I'm happy to contribute towards it as a taxpayer. I'd go further and say that I'd be happy for anyone to exploit the system if it means more folk are guaranteed income for longer. Obviously if the club can't afford this I would absolutely understand if they didn't do it and would agree, but if it costs clubs nothing then I'd be all for them exploiting every single loophole if it means they can help people. Danny Devine is absolutely shite and I'm glad he'll never play for the club again, but I don't personally hate the man and him being garbage doesn't mean I want his family to potentially suffer. If it costs the club nothing then I absolutely want them to help Devine and everyone else, regardless of how short or long that period is. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbychops Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 55 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: Exactly, which is why it would be nice to know why DAFC have chosen this route! ETA have the PFA said anything? Thought they would know what the position is Can only give my own opinion and the comments from Roy McGregor that there may well be HMRC repercussions to giving out short term contracts that are tax payer funded and then letting staff go after furlough. Times that by 17 and the club goes under. Risk not worth taking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Taxpayers have been ripped off by the many clubs that have gone into administration over the years.This is miniscule in comparison 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.